The positions Christians take on the issue of evolution has polarized Christians rather than unite. But why should this be so and why not instead look at what unites our faith?

Is it possible to accept one another with the love of Christ? Some while ago, in a christian forum I presented an argument that challenges the 24 hour idea of the "yom" of Genesis, the responses were negative and full of pejorative remarks but despite this I am optimistic that we can at least remove animosities in time.

I am greatly encouraged for example by Christians who are also science professionals and proponents of evolutionary science. For me this means that there are no excuses for people to reject God on grounds of evolution.

Of course someone will raise the question of the kind of faith held by such proponents of evolution, but I think this is a question put on everyone regardless of their take on evolution.

Quote: › I am greatly encouraged for example by Christians who are also science professionals and proponents of evolutionary science. For me this means that there are no excuses for people to reject God on grounds of evolution.

But how should Genesis be interpreted then?

I think a good starting point would be to have a couple of guiding principles to refer back on, like the one already mentioned by Rerun

Quote: › A front that moves throughout Christendom and is in perfect harmony on the essential doctrines that make up an orthodox Christian belief system. In essentials, unity. In nonessestials, liberty. In everything love.

Another would be to acknowledge that the Bible is a theological text not a scientific text, nevertheless, science can serve to refine our understanding of it.

For those interested, here is one site where you can get some interesting articles free.

Quote: › I am greatly encouraged for example by Christians who are also science professionals and proponents of evolutionary science.

Are you encouraged by Christians who also belief in 'macro evolution' or only those who accept 'micro evolution?'

Evolution can be accepted by Christians.

However, it should not guide their theology about God, Christ, His work and the nature of man.

There has to be a limitation put on somewhere.

I believe Adam was a direct creation of God and therefore evolution has no foundation on the origins of mankind.

The rest of the animal species, ehh, whatever. As long as it doesn't conflict with a Christians theology as I stated above.

Quote: › I believe Adam was a direct creation of God and therefore evolution has no foundation on the origins of mankind. The rest of the animal species, ehh, whatever.

Is there absolutely NO evolution, not even 'micro evolution' possible, concerning humans?
But that even 'macro evolution' is possible concerning animals?

Harrie wrote (View Post): › Is there absolutely NO evolution, not even 'micro evolution' possible, concerning humans? But that even 'macro evolution' is possible concerning animals?

Yes Harrie, I have corresponded though not met one personally (and I'd love to), but there are Christians, I believe genuine Christians, that are proponents of evolution, including man. This includes what you call macro-evolution of course. In this thread I wish to make that clear foremost, but I also wish to investigate any theological issues that arises. Particularly if they are in the area of "essentials" where we have unity or in the area of "non-essentials" where we have liberty.

Quote: › Yes Harrie, I have corresponded though not met one personally (and I'd love to), but there are Christians, I believe genuine Christians, that are proponents of evolution, including man.

I only know Christians (although some might not consider them Christians) that belief in evolution of animal AND man, I grew up that way, and only corresponded with Christians that did not belief in evolution.

Quote: › This includes what you call macro-evolution of course.

I was trying to adapt to your and Rerun's earlier use of words, but I see I can drop that by now. To me there is no need to use 'micro' or 'macro' as 'micro' would add up to 'macro' and is not very meaningful to evolutionists outside conversations with certain theists.

Quote: › In this thread I wish to make that clear foremost, but I also wish to investigate any theological issues that arises.

Does the acceptance of evolution not conflict with your former interpretation of Genesis?

Quote: › Is there absolutely NO evolution, not even 'micro evolution' possible, concerning humans?

Macro evolution is contradicted by Christ Himself. He said the Creator created Adam and Eve in the beginning.

I believe that man can adapt to his environment. It is rather plain to see that. I cannot subscribe to man coming from a shared ancestor with any primate though.

Quote: › But that even 'macro evolution' is possible concerning animals?

It certainly is possible.

But it does harm to the Genesis account. More correctly, the Genesis account does harm to macro-evolution. All animals were created according to their kinds.

Adaptation in the created kinds is more likely to have occurred.

A fruit fly can adapt to almost no end, but it still remains a fruit fly.

If man wants to write God out of the picture, I guess he could come up with all sorts of theories and speculations. And man does want to write God out of the picture.

Quote: › “Macro evolution is contradicted by Christ Himself. He said the Creator created Adam and Eve in the beginning.”

It is noted that ‘macro evolution’ for humans is out of the question as it conflicts with Genesis.

Quote: › “I believe that man can adapt to his environment. It is rather plain to see that. I cannot subscribe to man coming from a shared ancestor with any primate though.”

You agree that man can adapt to his environment, but what is the mechanism that prevents man from adapting so much that there will be major changes, similar to the way science has showed we share an ancestor with the primates?
You seem to agree that 1+1 can make 2, but not that 1+1+1=3 can ever occur?
How can any system that allows for small changes to occur, prevent those small changes from adding up to large changes?


I asked: “But that even 'macro evolution' is possible concerning animals?”

Quote: › “It certainly is possible. But it does harm to the Genesis account. More correctly, the Genesis account does harm to macro-evolution. All animals were created according to their kinds.”

Why could it be possible concerning animals, but NOT for humans; you use the same evidence: Genesis?
Isn’t ‘macro evolution’ in animals impossible than, as Genesis does not agree with that idea? One of those two must be wrong, don’t you agree?
Or NONE of the ‘created’ animals knows evolution, OR Genesis is not a literal account.

Quote: › “Adaptation in the created kinds is more likely to have occurred. A fruit fly can adapt to almost no end, but it still remains a fruit fly.”

If we ignore the arbitrary adult age that many countries choose, at what exact moment in time did you mentally and physically grow from an adolescent into an adult? Was there a sudden change so you were a completely different person from the day before? Or did you gradually change from a fetus to an adult?

Quote: › “If man wants to write God out of the picture, I guess he could come up with all sorts of theories and speculations.”

Could science theoretically ever be able to prove the existence of God you think, if they really, really wanted it?

Quote: › “And man does want to write God out of the picture.”

I agree with that; man does not want to live without Gods and other supernatural beings. But is that an indication that those Gods really exist?

This argument almost always turns into nothing more than a fight over definitions with rather pointless delineations, such as macro- and micro- evolution and defining adaptation.

I am coming to the conclusion that almost nobody deeply vested in either side is ever going to alter their position, thus making the whole discussion pointless. In this respect, it is very similar to arguing about a young earth/old earth perspective.

Suffice it to say, I find the evidences from science to be far and away more convincing than those from religion. And at this point in my life, I have come to really not care what others choose to believe so long as they don't attempt something as insane as passing theology off as science in the science classroom.

Quote: › what is the mechanism that prevents man from adapting so much that there will be major changes, similar to the way science has showed we share an ancestor with the primates?

You show me the mechanism. There is none. What? Random mutations? Get serious. Unproven.

Chance?

Evolution is mathematically impossible.

Quote: › How can any system that allows for small changes to occur, prevent those small changes from adding up to large changes?

Show it then. And don't give me any tiktaalik either. That is nothing more than 100% fish.

Quote: › you use the same evidence: Genesis?

Read my reply again. Genesis is NOT my evidence for evolution, big or small.

Quote: › Isn’t ‘macro evolution’ in animals impossible than, as Genesis does not agree with that idea?

That is what I believe according to Genesis.

I won't disfellowship with a Christian because they believe in evolution though. I would ask them to consider the theological implications of evolution against their beliefs.

Quote: › Or did you gradually change from a fetus to an adult?

Are you trying to say we evolve from baby to adult? That's odd. I never heard evolution put that way before.

I thought that was called aging? Hmmm?

Quote: › Could science theoretically ever be able to prove the existence of God you think, if they really, really wanted it?

It has, but men like you and Nator reject it over and over again. So really, what would it matter if science took an actual photograph of God and pout it on the nightly news? You guys would reject it as a glitch in the camera.

Basically, only until you have experienced God personally, can you ever accept Him.

But the rub is you won't allow it and God won't force Himself upon you.

Quote: › I agree with that; man does not want to live without Gods and other supernatural beings.

Harrie, that is not what I wrote. You sure you read that right?

Quote: › I am coming to the conclusion that almost nobody deeply vested in either side is ever going to alter their position, thus making the whole discussion pointless.

I agree that people very rarely change their position, but to me that is not important at all; I think it is interesting why people think the way they do, and how they deal with certain problems that their positions might cause.
There is only a small percentage of people who doubt enough to be pulled to one side or another as the result of a discussion: I do not belief that at this moment such people are active here, although somebody like that might very well be lurking and start to think things over.
I have had such a 'gray' period during only a few weeks in my life, before that period I was a convinced theist and after that period a convinced non-believer, but usually people are very actively looking for answers during such times.

Quote: › Suffice it to say, I find the evidences from science to be far and away more convincing than those from religion.

Same here ofcourse, the evidence can't be ignored by people who are free to look for truths.
But if you have the Bible as the reference to the truth, then that doesn't mean a thing anymore; then science is simply wrong, a human misunderstanding of God's works.
It works the same for us: we think the Bible must be wrong on quite a few topics, for we use science as a reference to the truth.
What is left to discuss is how you could test the reliability of a certain model of reality: is the model of science closer to the truth or the religious model, and why?
I think science has much more to show for than religion, but no doubt the average theist will disagree and point perhaps to personal experiences, ignoring that such experiences are quite common in just about all religions and often have a natural scientific explanation.

Quote: › And at this point in my life, I have come to really not care what others choose to believe so long as they don't attempt something as insane as passing theology off as science in the science classroom.

I'm almost always interested to learn why people belief what they belief. Usually I don't see their beliefs as harmful, unless it leads to negative responses regarding others. For example: I'm not gay, but get annoyed when gays are attacked by theists for their life style, and I am not a woman, but get annoyed when theists claim that women are of less value than men. And slavery and cruelty pisses me off big time. Christianity has all those elements quite obviously.
And I agree completely: pushing religion into science class is insane, you might as well give ballet classes in math class.
I must admit that I have a more negative opinion about religion than several years ago; I am now beginning to think that the agnostic/@theist view should be more actively promoted and explained (but never pushed or forced!)

Nator7821 wrote (View Post): › Suffice it to say, I find the evidences from science to be far and away more convincing than those from religion. And at this point in my life, I have come to really not care what others choose to believe so long as they don't attempt something as insane as passing theology off as science in the science classroom.

I agree. The bible is a theological text and not a science text, however, science, I believe, will never contradict the truths of the bible, more likely science will help to further our understanding. The point is that they are not antagonistic.

God created everything - this is a theological truth that I think, science cannot at this time elucidate.

God created man in His own image according to His likeness - this is a theological truth that I think, science cannot at this time elucidate.

Note: Science indicate human common ancestry with the great apes, this does not contradict the theological truth. A re-interpretation is that humans were made unique by the injection of God's breath. No longer a mere animal but raised up in position to be God's imagers. This is a relationship between God and man.

God created the world in 7 x 24 hour days - this is not a theological truth, but an interpretation of the scriptures IMHO. Personally I do not subscribe to 24 hour creation days but other Christians do. Scientific data is interpreted and it indicates that a long duration of time (billions of years) has transpired.

My position regarding the creation days (being longer than 24 hour days) were never based on science, I want that to be clear. I discarded that 24hr notion after a plain reading of the story. By plain reading, I mean to read without assuming too much. However, this issue is only a small piece of a bigger picture.

Science shows us what God did by way of empirical goggles.
The bible shows us what God did and will do by way of spiritual goggles.

Quote: › God created the world in 7 x 24 hour days - this is not a theological truth

I quite agree Oxy .I don't know why some Christians think 24 hour days especially as it took till the 4th day to make the sun where we get our 24 hour day from.